Not criticising, but curious how you rank them on performance/success? For instance, you rank Villeneuve above Kimi for Ferrari, but Kimi has more wins and titles than Gilles does.

Not that I'm trying to argue Kimi is better, but I'm trying to understand your methodology

Performance as well as success. Viewed as an overall his Ferrari years are dragged down by his second stint. So when compared to Villeneuve I would say Kimi has higher hi's but lower lows and the lows have lasted a lot longer than the highs.

But at the end of the day it's just my personal choice. Nothing scientific to it.

Not criticising, but curious how you rank them on performance/success? For instance, you rank Villeneuve above Kimi for Ferrari, but Kimi has more wins and titles than Gilles does.

Not that I'm trying to argue Kimi is better, but I'm trying to understand your methodology

Performance as well as success. Viewed as an overall his Ferrari years are dragged down by his second stint. So when compared to Villeneuve I would say Kimi has higher hi's but lower lows and the lows have lasted a lot longer than the highs.

But at the end of the day it's just my personal choice. Nothing scientific to it.

Not criticising, but curious how you rank them on performance/success? For instance, you rank Villeneuve above Kimi for Ferrari, but Kimi has more wins and titles than Gilles does.

Not that I'm trying to argue Kimi is better, but I'm trying to understand your methodology

Performance as well as success. Viewed as an overall his Ferrari years are dragged down by his second stint. So when compared to Villeneuve I would say Kimi has higher hi's but lower lows and the lows have lasted a lot longer than the highs.

But at the end of the day it's just my personal choice. Nothing scientific to it.

Not criticising, but curious how you rank them on performance/success? For instance, you rank Villeneuve above Kimi for Ferrari, but Kimi has more wins and titles than Gilles does.

Not that I'm trying to argue Kimi is better, but I'm trying to understand your methodology

Performance as well as success. Viewed as an overall his Ferrari years are dragged down by his second stint. So when compared to Villeneuve I would say Kimi has higher hi's but lower lows and the lows have lasted a lot longer than the highs.

But at the end of the day it's just my personal choice. Nothing scientific to it.

Very interesting table. It inspired me to make a Ferrari-table with all the Ferrari-drivers since 1950 based on statistics, and it turns out with exactly the same four drivers at the top as in your table. So your gut feelings (or knowledge) is remarkably close to statistics. The score is calculated based on results corrected for number of races, and only drivers with more than 10 races for Ferrari are included. I have described the method several times in other "Top-threads" if anyone is interested in how the numbers are created.

It probably won't come as a surprise to anyone that Michael Schumacher is the most successful Ferrari-driver ever by a wide margin, but there are some interesting pieces of information hidden in the table. Like Mario Andretti ranking lower than Stefan Johansson and not much higher than Arturo Merzario and Ivan Capelli. Andretti was considerably more successful with Lotus than with Ferrari.

Or how about Gilles Villeneuve ranking higher than Jody Scheckter even though his teammate Jody Scheckter became WDC while Gilles Villeneuve didn't achieved that before his untimely death.